For those who are not regular readers of Take a Break magazine it may come as a surprise that its readers are forming a "Mums' Army" to contest seats in next month's local elections. It plans to put up 54 candidates, fighting a campaign based around anger and frustration over anti-social behaviour - and the perceived failure of anyone in authority, including all the main political parties, to do anything about it.

Mums' Army is unlikely to make a serious impact on the balance of power, but that is not really the point. It is the message, and the messenger, that is significant. Take a Break's readership numbers around 3.5 million people, of whom 3m are women. The typical reader is working class or lower middle class, aged 25-55, and married with children. Take a Break does not sell well in metropolitan centres; its success is predicated on the way it speaks to ordinary provincial Britain.

A report earlier this year in UK Press Gazette summarised the candidates' collective views as: "In favour of banning membership of street gangs, compelling parents of Asbo [antisocial behaviour order] children to attend parenting classes, banning video games, music and videos promoting violence and dealing leniently with people 'provoked by yobs into breaking the law.'"

The currency of such attitudes was highlighted in a recent speech by the elected mayor of Middlesbrough, Ray Mallon. He predicted that antisocial behaviour and the political parties' response to it will determine the outcome of the next general election. Similarly, a recent survey of residents by north London's Camden council revealed that the top three concerns centred on improving the behaviour of others (noise, drug dealing and street nuisance).

So what's going on? Since 1945, local government has been driven by - and judged on - outcomes such as the number of social housing units built and the level of services provided. We have established a public service framework that is determined by need and entitlement with a strong professional work ethic of "duty of care" to implement this. But the mood is changing.

Many councillors and staff know of "needy families" who are consuming vast amounts of local public funds with no discernable sign of improvement and appear generational in their needs. One council leader I know, who has for years held true to the principle that all services should be available on the basis of need, has taken to informing housing applicants that if they want to stop living in overcrowded accommodation they should stop having more children. An outrageous, moralistic breach of their rights and entitlements, or just an honest statement of harsh reality?

Moreover, local politics in general is arguably responding to this new mood. In the run-up to the local elections, Labour-run Camden is pointing to its record of zero tolerance in issuing Asbos and contrasting it with what it says is the "lax" attitude in Liberal Democrat-run Islington - a campaign mirrored in the north by Manchester (known as the UK's "Asbo capital") and Liverpool.

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has introduced free travel for under-17s but with the sanction of removing the benefit for those who commit antisocial behaviour. Hovering in the background is the Conservative's proposal for "elected sheriffs" which, if implemented, could transform some of the principles behind local policing.

There are some real tensions here for councils and councillors. It's easy to see how councillors becoming "moral guardians" could lead to unwelcome intolerance. But many local people do want the right to set standards of behaviour on their streets and in local communities, and often for a much smaller area than local councils or even existing wards.

Such legitimate demands place considerable stress on the mediating and brokering role of local politicians in terms of different life styles and standards of behaviour. However, it also creates the potential for "collective peer pressure" from local people and councillors to challenge and stop bad behaviour, which can literally ruin a community despite all the best efforts of local service providers. It certainly provides another dimension to the current debate on neighbourhood governance.

For the past 10 years, local government and its local politicians have been focused on improving council performance. Maybe the real prize over the next decade is to focus on improving the behaviour of their residents for the benefit of all. (Just imagine a town where no one drops litter). Before we dismiss the idea out of hand, it just might be worth listening to the views of the Mums' Army.